Mormon and Jehovah's witness

[lori4dogs]

I am not sure why you are so convinced there is "denominational bias." For one thing, there are people of many denominations posting here. I think maybe you are projecting from your own experience. It is biased to assume that all of us here have a "denominational bias."





Why would you read Shelby Spong or Matthew Fox? Spong denies every essential of the Christian faith. The man is apostate. And Matthew Fox is a New Ager who says we can all be "christs."

I read 'Born of a Woman' by Spong as an assignment in an Episcopal study group I once participated in. I read Matthew Fox (Original Blessing) for the same reason. Spong not only denies every essential of the Christian faith, I'm convinced he is an atheist.

Bishop John Shelby Spong:
# 1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.
# "2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So, the Christology of the ages is bankrupt."
# (pp. 453-454, 'Here I Stand,' John Shelby Spong, Twelve Theses,A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile,A Call for a New Reformation.)

You have a good point about my 'denominational bais' comment.

 

[Marcia]

I read 'Born of a Woman' by Spong as an assignment in an Episcopal study group I once participated in. I read Matthew Fox (Original Blessing) for the same reason. Spong not only denies every essential of the Christian faith, I'm convinced he is an atheist.

Bishop John Shelby Spong:
# 1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. God can no longer be understood with credibility as a Being, supernatural in power, dwelling above the sky and prepared to invade human history periodically to enforce the divine will. So, most theological God-talk today is meaningless unless we find a new way to speak of God.
# "2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So, the Christology of the ages is bankrupt."
# (pp. 453-454, 'Here I Stand,' John Shelby Spong, Twelve Theses,A Bishop Speaks to Believers in Exile,A Call for a New Reformation.)

[FONT=&quot]Yes, he's either an atheist or New Ager --- haven't read enough of him to know. A New Ager could have said the above as well. I've read more of Fox as he falls into my ministry area.

[/FONT]

You have a good point about my 'denominational bais' comment.

[FONT=&quot]Thanks for admitting it![/FONT]

 

[Thinkingstuff]

'So is water about baptism or about being humanly born?'

Mark Brumley makes this point:

'A major problem with this argument, however, is that while Jesus does contrast physical and spiritual life, he clearly uses the term “flesh” for the former, in contrast to “Spirit” for the latter. Jesus might say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of flesh and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” — though it would be obvious and absurdly redundant to say that one must be born (i.e., born of flesh) in order to be born again (i.e., born of the Spirit). But using “born of water and the Spirit” to mean “born of the flesh and then of the Spirit” would only confuse things by introducing the term “water” from out of nowhere, without any obvious link to the term “flesh.” Moreover, while the flesh is clearly opposed to the Spirit and the Spirit clearly opposed to the flesh in this passage, the expression “born of water and the Spirit” implies no such opposition. It is not “water” vs. “the Spirit,” but “water and the Spirit.”

Furthermore, the Greek of the text suggests that “born of water and the Spirit” (literally “born of water and spirit”) refers to a single, supernatural birth over against natural birth (“born of the flesh”). The phrase “of water and the Spirit” (Greek, ek hudatos kai pneumatos) is a single linguistical unit. It refers to being “born of water and the Spirit,” not “born of water” on the one hand and “born of the Spirit” on the other.'

'However, as I grew up a "new spirit" is not in evidence? Why not?'
I know Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. who exhibit the fruits of the Spirit who were baptized as infants and I know plenty that unless they told you they were baptized you would never know it. You probably do too.

The word of God seems to suggest that accepting the gospel message and being baptized are interconnected and that living out our baptismal commitment (or ones made on our behalf) is a covenant that we can accept or reject.

Jesus says:“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. Isn't part of responding to the gospel message being obedient and being baptized?

Mark Brumley makes a good point. However, as in any conceived idea there are two aspects. The thought and the application of that thought. So here is my delema. I was baptised but I did not exhibit the spirit. Not exhibiting the spirit is equal to not having it. If baptism is a requirement to having the spirit then what went wrong? Why not have the Spirit?
Ok lets look at it another way. Lets say baptism is what Jesus is referring to. Then in the context of the NT baptism is a cerimonial washing for repentance. Ie.. referrence the baptism of John (who came in the spirit of Elijah and turned the fathers to the sons and the sons to the father); and the baptism of Jesus and his disciples which were of the same mode. This is pre-pentecost. Then is it a possibility then to understand Jesus words that baptism for the repentence of sin (ie showing a hart already turned Godward) and then life. In otherwords, Repent and receive life (the spirit). So is it the water that saves or the repenting in the context of baptism as baptism was a Jewish ritual washing cerimony developed in the intertestimental period. Since repenting and turning to God is fully represented in the baptism of John (which seemed acceptable to the apostles) you must be born of water (repent by showing your repentance in the ritual wash) and of Spirit?

Though still in the context of the discussion Jesus did just past Nicodemus question "must I enter my mothers womb again". So it can still follow no you must be born of water (the first time) and of spirit ( a second time but with life). Following the Adam motif of death to life.

For me is the application. If the theory is 2+x=4 then x=2. Then every time I apply x=2 in a calculation it should make sence. ie x+4=6; x+8=10; x*100=200 etc. Now if I apply it and the answer is x+14=15 then I have to question the variable. If in the same way I am baptised and the Holy Spirit is given me then I am not born again. If reception of the Holy Spirit requires baptism then what's the hold up? So my variable is wrong. Either Jesus meant repentance or he meant a fulness of birth which includes both physical and spiritual. Do you see my meaning?

 

[BobRyan]

Practicing eisegesis does not lend to credibility.

How true. Give me exegesis every time.

in Christ,

bob

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic Church is the fastest growing church in the World. The majority of converts in our area are former Baptist and Methodist who have studied there Bibles with the Catechism and found that they have been decieved. We now have 60 enrolled as former protestants who are seeking reception into Christ One, Holy and Apostolic Chruch.

How many enrolled in your intructions classes? Be truthful NOW!!

1. Catholic churches "grow" (primarily) by infant baptism.

2. That infant that then goes on to "convert to Baptist" or some other protestant group - REMAINS counted as a Catholic under the Catholic system. (no attempt is made to reconcile the books with what actually happens in real life). Thus the Catholic numbers are in fact - actual Catholics plus a plethora of Baptists, Methodists, Adventists, Agnostics and Atheists...

3. Given that "all doors just say IN" model in Catholicism -- it is no wonder that the marketing number keeps growing. But what would be of great interest - is some thing like the REAL number!

(And I only bring up this point since you brought up the subject to start with)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Where have I proselytized and not defended.

When you make false statements about Mary, purgatory, infalibillity of the pope, praying to saints, etc., I try to correct them using the best means I have. When I do so, I am accused of propogating lies!

I have nothing against someone defending accuracy with regard to their denomination. I believe that is the Christian thing to do -

I for one am still waiting for some actual point raised showing that anything I have said on the list above is factually in error.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

From the post at this link -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1496921&postcount=111

However, today the number of practicing Catholics in Quebec has dwindled to just five percent of the population, compared with 80 percent in 1960. The result? Too few parishioners to pay the roughly $200,000 a year it costs to maintain the average church. Those sorry numbers lead Professor Noppen to estimate that Montreal will have barely 10 parishes left by 2015.

http://www.universityaffairs.ca/empty-churches-full-of-history.aspx


Why not speak the truth Lori? Or do you know it? In Canada, (Quebec especially) church after church is going bankrupt because of disinterested Catholics walking away from "organized Catholicism." Here are some URL's that you can see for yourself, most of which cover the world. But most of the damage to the RCC is being done in Quebec, Canada, as is shown in the last post.

So given the "every door says IN" model of counting Catholic Membership --

The above quotes provided by DHK result in High RCC numbers - with LOW RCC attendance.

However - I think the real cause for the drop off in practicising Christianity in Canada is the state and church sponsored doctrines of evolutionism -- that have had the SAME net effect on Europe at this point.

I would much prefer that it were a huge up-tick in Protestant evangelism that created the downturn in RCC attendance - but I believe the symptom runs across all groups in Canada that have embraced evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob
http://www.universityaffairs.ca/empty-churches-full-of-history.aspx

 

[BobRyan]

My argument from the start was that I am not willing to declare either Catholic, or JW or Mormon "lost" simply because they happen to belong to their respective denominations.

I also point out that the RCC doctrinal list of errors is soooo striking that they exceed the list typically associated with JWS and Mormons (For example notice the "detail" where we find the LATERAN IV "extermination of Jews and Heretics" command as an INFALLIBLE aspect of RC canon law -- )

However it is "possible" to SPIN that inclusive argument about not tossing out RCC members and JWS and Mormons -as being a kind of "hatred" if you spin it "just right".

I wrote the above to you in response to your remarks on the JWs and Mormons. I must disagree that they are in any category with Catholics. The SDA hatred of catholics is showing here.

And that would be the "spin" I was referencing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Wow, i just spend considerable time responding othe above post. I'm must say I'm ver frustrated. I will not spend the time this evening to give some biblilical evidence to the the new testament and the fact that WHOLE jewish houselholds were baptiszed as well as many, many Judaic households were Baptiszed.

1. there is NO statement in all of scripture of an infant being "baptized" no not even one.

2. There is NO "whole household" statement in the NT that does not include that household HEARING and ACCEPTING the message that is preached. See Acts 10.

3. The Acts 2 model "repent and be baptized" model is never contradicted in all of scripture. No not even once.

4. The CATHOLIC book "A concise History of the Catholic Church" that was written by a practicing Catholic Historian - admits that initially membership into the church was via Bible study and acceptance of doctrine - not via "magic sacrament" by a priest that had the "magic power" to mark the soul via holy water.

5. The CATHOLIC publication "Catholic Digest" addressed the issue of the "history of baptism" and there it admitted that from the earliest times - it was not INFANT baptism but believer's baptism that was the mode for entering Church membership. It was the invented doctrine of LIMBO and the notion that infants could not go to heaven if they were not baptized that "evolved" over time - which resulted in the curren practice of infant baptism.

However - in my list of "problems" for the RCC - my argument was less about the history of infant baptism and more about the RCC argument for "POWERS" given to the Priest via the "marking of the soul" in "Holy Orders" that are "sooo magical" that even if that priest is excommunicated for heresy - those "powers' remain.

Powers to - "confect God" in the Eucharist - for example.

Imagine a Mormon or a JW claiming such a "power" today???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I want to commend you for your knowledge of the cults - it's obvious.

Thanks. Many years ago, I was good friends with a guy and the girl who's now his wife. His parents were ex-Jehovah's Witnesses who got saved and began a ministry to JWs and other cult members.

They were partners in ministry with Walter Martin and some of the things they did together laid the groundwork for what would later become CRI and the Bible Answer Man.

If I'm not mistaken, a presentation they did with Martin called "Jehovah's Witnesses at Your Door" is still a very popular resource in teaching Christians to deal with JWs.

I learned a lot from them.

 

[lori4dogs]

From the post at this link -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1496921&postcount=111




So given the "every door says IN" model of counting Catholic Membership --

The above quotes provided by DHK result in High RCC numbers - with LOW RCC attendance.

However - I think the real cause for the drop off in practicising Christianity in Canada is the state and church sponsored doctrines of evolutionism -- that have had the SAME net effect on Europe at this point.

I would much prefer that it were a huge up-tick in Protestant evangelism that created the downturn in RCC attendance - but I believe the symptom runs across all groups in Canada that have embraced evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob
http://www.universityaffairs.ca/empty-churches-full-of-history.aspx

Well, the Catholic Church of Visalia, CA is certainly not 'dwindling'. Check out our website. http://www.tccov.org/ There is standing room only at 15 weekend masses. Over 30,000 registered members. Check out the photos of the masses, see any empty pews? Membership in the Catholic Church has tripled since we moved here. I would think if people were leaving in droves, as you seem to be inferring, for evangelical churches then the evangelical churches here wouldn't have so many empty pews on Sunday.

As far as removing ex-members. Most churches are pretty bad about deleting people from their roles. I'm still listed as a member of an SBC in Riverside, CA. despite my informing them that I'm now Catholic. I suspect the Episcopal Church is about the worst offender. They really don't want to admit that their decision to consecrate/ordain gay clergy in same sex relationships has caused a mass exodus from their churches. The majority of the Diocese of San Joaquin departed the Episcopal Church and they are still claiming them as members. If you check their Average Sunday Attendance it is nothing compared to their claims of actual members.

My point is that all churches are somewhat delinquent in purging their church roles. The proof is in the pews.

I agree that the situation in Canada is a sad one. Liberals abound in just about every denomination there. Don't stop with Canada, check out Sweden. 3 percent (at most) of the population attends church. Not much difference in the other Scandinavian countries. Liberal churches=empty pews. In the UK, the bible believing Anglican Churches are growing, the liberal ones are dwindling.

 

[DHK]

Well, the Catholic Church of Visalia, CA is certainly not 'dwindling'. Check out our website. http://www.tccov.org/ There is standing room only at 15 weekend masses. Over 30,000 registered members. Check out the photos of the masses, see any empty pews? Membership in the Catholic Church has tripled since we moved here. I would think if people were leaving in droves, as you seem to be inferring, for evangelical churches then the evangelical churches here wouldn't have so many empty pews on Sunday.

The Catholic Church know little about salvation. It equates the new birth with baptism which is a heretical position. Water cannot save. It never has. Do an exercise for me. Look up in the Catholic Encyclopedia "St. Francis Xavier," and tell me why he was made a saint. What was the great work that he did in the eyes of the Catholic Church? What is he best known for in history? See what the Catholic revisionists do with this part of history. Now look at the real history of what happened.

The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Inquisition acting in the Indian state of Goa and the rest of the Portuguese empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774-1778, and finally abolished in 1812.[1]
The Inquisition was established to punish relapsed New Christians – Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism, as well as their descendants – who were now suspected of practicing their ancestral religion in secret. In Goa, the Inquisition also turned its attention to Indian converts from Hinduism or Islam who were thought to have returned to their original ways. In addition, the Inquisition prosecuted non-converts who broke prohibitions against the observance of Hindu or Muslim rites or interfered with Portuguese attempts to convert non-Christians to Catholicism.[2] While its ostensible aim was to preserve the Catholic faith, the Inquisition was used against Indian Catholics and Hindus as an instrument of social control, as well as a method of confiscating victims' property and enriching the Inquisitors.[3]
Most of the Goa Inquisition's records were destroyed after its abolition in 1812, and it is thus impossible to know the exact number of the Inquisition's victims. Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and I. S. D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed in person; another 64 were burned in effigy. Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penanced, but the fate of many of the Inquisition's victims is unknown.[2]


Many converted Indians were opportunistic Rice Christians, who even practiced their old religion. This was seen as a threat to the immaculateness of the Christian belief. St. Francis Xavier, in a 1545 letter to John III of Portugal, requested an Inquisition to be installed in Goa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition

Francis Xavier made converts by baptism, under threat of the sword. Be baptized or die! Even infants were forced to be baptized. This was the RCC way. This was the RCC mode of evangelism in Goa (India). There was no regard for human life here. These people were not treated humanely. And yet Xavier was promoted to sainthood.

Infant baptism is no different. Be baptized or die!
That is the thought behind it.

 

[lori4dogs]

Christians have done some abominable things over the centurys in the name of Jesus. Both Catholic Christians and protestant Christians. You won't find me trying to excuse the atrocities.

Do an exercise for me. Look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation

Tell me what these people did to deserve execution? That is a really long list of people killed in the name of Jesus!

 

[lori4dogs]

Hanged, drawn and quartered. What a treat for the Lord!

 

[DHK]

Christians have done some abominable things over the centurys in the name of Jesus. Both Catholic Christians and protestant Christians. You won't find me trying to excuse the atrocities.

Do an exercise for me. Look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_martyrs_of_the_English_Reformation

Tell me what these people did to deserve execution? That is a really long list of people killed in the name of Jesus!

Apples and oranges.
Your list has to do with battle for supremacy mostly in England. The church in England is a state church. For example when Bloody Mary (Mary Tudor) rose to power, she was a zealous Catholic; and with the blessing of the Pope she did everything in her power to exterminate all who would not convert to Catholicism. If you want to talk about a person that has blood on their hands it would be her and the pope backing her.

When the Church of England rose to power there was often the persecution of Catholics in return. It was a battle for supremacy during those days.

This has nothing to do with a supposed Catholic missionary sent to win the lost in a foreign nation and ends up massacring these people with the sword, with unbelievable excruciating torture, with a horrible and horrendous Inquisition such as history is unable to describe. And for this he is promoted to sainthood???????
Come to your senses! This was a missionary enterprise. This was the RCC's method of going to India and "winning the lost."

 

[annsni]

The Catholic churches here on Long Island have gotten smaller since I was Catholic. I remember masses being really full but other than holidays, they're not so much anymore. However, I'd say more than 1/2 of our population is Catholic - what I'd call "cultural Catholic". If you are born in the Catholic church and baptized there, you are Catholic for life unless you actively change churches. I was baptized and received my first communion in the Catholic church before I was saved and went on to Catholic school from 7th through 12th grades to avoid the public school.

Another sign of the shrinking of the Catholic church is our local seminary, the Seminary of the Immaculate Conception. My mom worked there for a while and formerly there were large classes - graduating 50+ priests yearly. The last year she worked there before she died, the graduating class was 2. I just looked - this year's graduating class numbers 8.

Probably 1/2 of our congregation is formerly Catholic and even one of our pastors was going to become a priest before he came to know Jesus as his Savior. So Lori - while you know a few Baptist become Catholic, I can tell you 18 in my own family went from Catholic to born-again believer and I can personally name atleast 200 others who I know well who were formerly Catholic.

 

[lori4dogs]

The Catholic churches here on Long Island have gotten smaller since I was Catholic. I remember masses being really full but other than holidays, they're not so much anymore. However, I'd say more than 1/2 of our population is Catholic - what I'd call "cultural Catholic". If you are born in the Catholic church and baptized there, you are Catholic for life unless you actively change churches. I was baptized and received my first communion in the Catholic church before I was saved and went on to Catholic school from 7th through 12th grades to avoid the public school.

Another sign of the shrinking of the Catholic church is our local seminary, the Seminary of the Immaculate Conception. My mom worked there for a while and formerly there were large classes - graduating 50+ priests yearly. The last year she worked there before she died, the graduating class was 2. I just looked - this year's graduating class numbers 8.

Probably 1/2 of our congregation is formerly Catholic and even one of our pastors was going to become a priest before he came to know Jesus as his Savior. So Lori - while you know a few Baptist become Catholic, I can tell you 18 in my own family went from Catholic to born-again believer and I can personally name atleast 200 others who I know well who were formerly Catholic.

I know a lot more than a few Baptist that have become Catholic. However, most of the Catholics that I know that have become Baptist were very poorly catechized as Catholics. On the other hand the Baptist I have known who have become Catholic have done so after much study. I have been reading the testimonies of former protestants (when Catholics were allowed to defend their faith here) for years and noticed the conversions came after in depth study of the word and early church history.

You know and I know it goes both ways. My own sister was a Baptist missionary for years before she became a Catholic.


Maybe it is a regional thing but the Catholic Church here is growing very fast.
Lots of evangelism happening in these parts.

I'm very happy to know anyone who has found Jesus by way of a protestant evangelism or a Catholic evangelism. I am genuinely happy that your family has found the Lord.

 

[DHK]

Hard facts are the best reply:

As the Watergate scandal of 1973-1974 diverted attention from the far greater tragedy unfolding in Southeast Asia, so, too, the scandal of predator-priests now afflicting the Catholic Church may be covering up a far greater calamity.
Thirty-seven years after the end of the only church council of the 20th century, the jury has come in with its verdict: Vatican II appears to have been an unrelieved disaster for Roman Catholicism.
Liars may figure, but figures do not lie. Kenneth C. Jones of St. Louis has pulled together a http://www.wnd.com/#volume of statistics he has titled Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church Since Vatican II.
His findings make prophets of Catholic traditionalists who warned that Vatican II would prove a blunder of historic dimensions, and those same findings expose as foolish and naive those who believed a council could reconcile Catholicism and modernity. When Pope John XXIII threw open the windows of the church, all the poisonous vapors of modernity entered, along with the Devil himself.
Here are Jones' grim statistics of Catholicism's decline:

• Priests. While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.
• Ordinations. In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.
• Seminarians. Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.
• Sisters. In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.
• Religious Orders. For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven. The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.
• Catholic schools. Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million.

Though the number of U.S. Catholics has risen by 20 million since 1965, Jones' statistics show that the power of Catholic belief and devotion to the Faith are not nearly what they were.

For a continuation of more of the same kind of bleak information of the RCC see here:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29948

 

[DHK]

Here is another interesting article:

[SIZE=-1]DAVID CARLIN[/SIZE] ACCORDING TO the recent American Religious Identification Survey of 2008 — by scholars at Trinity College in Hartford — the percentage of Rhode Islanders who are Catholic has dropped from 62 percent in 1990 to 46 percent today. This is hardly surprising, since the same study shows what has been known for a long time — namely, that Catholicism is in decline across America. The nationwide decline would be worse were it not for the recent influx of Hispanic immigrants, the great majority of whom are at least nominally Catholic.
Since the latter part of the 1960s, the once-thriving Catholic Church in the United States has been in serious decline on almost all fronts. Church attendance is way down. So are religious vocations. There is a serious “priest shortage” and an equally serious shortage of religious sisters. Hundreds, if not thousands, of Catholic elementary and high schools have closed down.

http://www.projo.com/opinion/letters/content/CT_carlin29_04-29-09_OIDRNKV_v11.3e69149.html

 

[DHK]

Even the Catholics themselves recognize that their own Church is in trouble:

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Behold the "springtime of Evangelism" and the "fruit of Vatican II," as interpreted by liberal progressive modernists within the Church...

(LifeSiteNews.com) - Official statistics released this weekend by the Vatican on the numbers of adult converts, priests and seminarians, show that the small growth in some areas is not matching the needs of the Church. Despite several media reports highlighting a modest growth in critical statistics in the Church, the numbers actually reveal a backwards trend.

Monsignor Ingacio Barreiro, head of the Rome office of Human Life International and an experienced UN diplomat, told LifeSiteNews.com that the numbers indicate not overall health and growth in the Catholic Church, but a steady decline that could be disastrous for the fight for life and family....

read full story here​

The Church cannot survive according to this paradigm. We have to go back to what we know works. The Traditionalists were right.

'The Catholic Knight' humbly offers this prescription for renewal within the Church....

1. Make official translations of the Tridentine mass into the vernacular languages and promulgate them.
2. Suspend use of the Novus Ordo Missal.
3. The faithful must be educated as to why this was done and the utter failure of the new liturgy to produce new vocations.
4. The faithful must be educated as to the proper understanding of Vatican II as a "pastoral council," which in no way abrogates the work of previous councils or previous Church teaching.
5. The Church MUST excommunicate those public figures who commit public heresy and give scandal to the gospel of life.

It would seem that without these changes, the Church cannot be renewed, nor can it expect to thrive in the coming decades. We must go back to what we know works! This crisis did not exist prior to the institution of the new liturgy and the subsequent interpretation of Vatican II as "superdogma." How long must we endure this Modernist suicide within our own ranks!

Nothing tells the story better than the decline in vocations since the Second Vatican Council and the institution of the Novus Ordo liturgy (Missal of Pope Paul VI). The graph below illustrates...

http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2009/03/catholic-church-officially-in-decline.html